No.1832440
Data and memories are also physical.
No.1832443
words words words words
No.1832444
>>1832440i mean, data is a concept of something physical…
No.1832448
>>1832443since i am not a normie noble savage, i cannot understand your pragmatic ways of thinking. you will have to help me understand where you derive your justification for your sense-experience being true and reliable from given that even empirically we know people can become delusional
No.1832449
>>1832439>a cognitive rendition of material…as opposed to?
No.1832450
>>1832449exactly my point.. idealism is the truth! we experience the world in terms of ideas and transcendental models
No.1832457
If things were real, they'd be thinking. Since they don't think they're not real.
No.1832463
There's no reason to be upset if I pee in your mouth because that's like all in your head man.
No.1832467
>>1832450>we experience the world in terms of ideas and transcendental modelsThat doesn't mean that that is the nature of reality. Our brains work with abstract ideas and models
because the world is material. Matter and energy do not contain any "meaning" unto themselves, like metadata in a computer program or something. The only way they can be "understood" in any way is to create an abstraction of them. This isn't
exclusive to ideas - a bacterium that swims towards the light is already dealing in "meaning," since it can perceive some physical state in the world and translate that into a motive or an "ought" for it to follow, even though that process is purely physical, e.g. the light receptor biochemically stimulating the flagellum to make it swim. This kind of meaning-making is intrinsic to life as we know it, but it's still based in physicality. Our much more sophisticated brains are ultimately serving the same function, even though they are qualitatively different. Our abstractions of anything in the world are, in the last analysis, the same sort of thing as a bacterium's abstraction of light as something to swim towards.
No.1832482
>>1832478i like how u leave out the second part that goes “yeah but u gotta fight” acknowledging idealism
No.1832484
>>1832463idealism != solipsism
No.1832487
>>1832484All right that's all in
our heads.
No.1832488
>>1832487incredulity is not an argument!!!
No.1832489
>>1832482Yea i did it on purpose lol
No.1832494
>>1832450>we experience the worldso materialism is correct?
No.1832497
>>1832493I guess, tbh i have no clue what that pic means
No.1832501
Marx's weakness is his ontology. Does he equate existence with matter or is matter a subdivision of being? If its a subdivision then how can matter be primary? If matter is simply existence then nothing other than matter can exist and it cannot be primary because there's nothing else for it to be prior to. Material analysis might be useful in the social sciences or economics but outside of that it doesn't make a lot of sense.
No.1832503
>>1832488But I believe my man there's like no matter cuz it's all about thinking you see, when I pee in your mouth that's just our thoughts there's no reason to be upset.
No.1832506
>>1832450So what if we experience it that way? It's not relevant if you're trying to make a claim about reality as it exists with or without you
No.1832513
>>1832506implying you can make a claim about reality you havent got any experiential evidence for
No.1832514
>>1832494no bc the world is a concept in the mind
No.1832519
What's the mind? It doesn't matter. What's matter? Never mind.
No.1832523
>>1832519ahahhahhah thats how i feel too…
No.1832526
>materialism is a crude form of idealism
based and taoistpilled
No.1832547
>>1832514the world and your image of it are two very distinct things and reducing one to the other doesn't account for the sheer amount of sensory phenomena that you don't control or outright resist you. otherwise you'd have to account for antagonism and contradiction against conscious will within an individual human mind itself, which you kind of can't. so you're stuck either with materialism or some kind of objective idealism. either way, something exists independently of your individual impression of it
to put it another way are you gonna sit there and tell me getting into a car crash and being crippled is reducible to a concept in your individual psyche
>>1832513>implying you can't infer things No.1832548
>>18325011. historical materialism is an ontology of history, not a general ontology
2. you're confusing linguistic difficulties with actual conceptual difficulties
No.1832549
>>1832547>to put it another way are you gonna sit there and tell me getting into a car crash and being crippled is reducible to a concept in your individual psycheyou can heal yourself from anything if you focus enough, you know
No.1832551
>>1832548>historical materialism is an ontology of history, not a general ontologyname one thing outside history!
wait, you can't? i guess it's an ontology of everything then
No.1832552
>>1832467thread should have ended here.
You can infer a mind-independent reality even if you can't directly show evidence of it. This is child's play
No.1832553
>>1832551>semanticsmarx's theory is referring to human history specifically, not the history of life or the universe. Don't play games.
No.1832554
>>1832549>you can heal yourself from anything if you focus enough, you knowNo, you can't.
Source: I've had illnesses that required medical intervention.
No.1832558
>>1832557Then have better arguments than semantics.
No.1832565
>>1832560You're clearly not serious. Goodbye.
No.1832566
>>1832514but you are presupposing "the world" which includes the very mind from where concepts emerge while discounting pre-conceptual experience
No.1832569
>>1832566please read hegel lol none of that is pre conscious its just consciousness coming to know itself
No.1832604
>how can you say consciousness isn't real if you're using your consciousness to talk about consciousness?
^ this you rn
No.1832666
>>1832501>Does he equate existence with matter or is matter a subdivision of being?Besides the funny semantic errors and unnecessary assumptions you made, I think this is a false dichotomy.
Marx's ontology, as I understand it, situates being as something that is mediated by, and as human activity. Meaning that being can only be understood in the relationship between human activity (eg thinking about being) and existence or being-ness. One cannot exist without the other, one presupposes the other.
Ludwig Wittgenstein remarks
> "The world is the totality of facts, not of things.Missing one side of the equation, by merely putting the focus on the human activity.
This dual relationship, as I understand it, similar to Hegel's dialectical phenomenology.
Although this could just be my poor interpretation.
No.1832673
>>1832463>There's no reason to be upset<There's no reason not to be upset..?Which one is true?..
Dialectically, perhaps both of them in their own systemicity.
.
No.1832680
>>1832673There's only reason to be that which is most useful to you. Emotions aren't useful.
No.1832695
Not this shit again.
>>1832467Pretty much sums it up.
No.1832698
>>1832680Utilitarianism is a lifestyle choice. To have a lifestyle choice you must first be. If the reason to be is to be utilitarian, then it precedes being or is being itself.
At first there's not even "you", there is simply being, without any features, which means that not even specific existence is a feature at this point. Which means that it is nothing, without any transformation needed. This nothing, which is completely featureless, undefined, but hence is not even absence, because absence is a feature, and it implies being. In this way, nothing is, and by being so, becomes being, having the same content of such.
At this point you're not even relevant. Utility is so far away it's not even relevant.
How can being imply nothing and nothing imply being, in that on introspection one becomes the other?
Well, as being becomes nothing, it ceases to
be, and as nothing becomes being then it comes to be.
Coming to be and ceasing to be as each implies the other and is immediately the other, then this whole is becoming, what once appeared as two separate elements have shown themselves to actually be one thing, becoming. This is obvious because becoming both presupposes nothing and being, but also the process of ceasing to be and coming to be, they are a necessary component of becoming.
No.1832702
>>1832698>At first there's not even "you", there is simply being, without any features, which means that not even specific existence is a feature at this point. Which means that it is nothing, without any transformation needed. This nothing, which is completely featureless, undefined, but hence is not even absence, because absence is a feature, and it implies being. In this way, nothing is, and by being so, becomes being, having the same content of such. There you go bro, you become content within yourself in all conditions, you have no needs anymore. So what is left? Other people with needs, so you live to serve them.
>At this point you're not even relevant. Utility is so far away it's not even relevant. On an infinite timescale you're not at all.
>How can being imply nothing and nothing imply being, in that on introspection one becomes the other? >Well, as being becomes nothing, it ceases to be, and as nothing becomes being then it comes to be. Because not being is an illusion and your true existence is being. This is the only condition you will no from the beginning of time until the end. Existence. Non-existence is an illusion. It doesn't make sense on the face of it. We know that we/something exists, non-existence is merely a hypothetical which is based on a flawed premise with no reality in our experience.
>Coming to be and ceasing to be as each implies the other and is immediately the other, then this whole is becoming, what once appeared as two separate elements have shown themselves to actually be one thing, becoming. This is obvious because becoming both presupposes nothing and being, but also the process of ceasing to be and coming to be, they are a necessary component of becoming.You're still trapped in dualism. Non-existence is an illusion. There is not two but one a UNIverse if you will. Dichotomies are an illusion.
No.1832754
>>1832450The way we experience the world is not the world.
No.1832938
>>1832484Idealism ultimately leads to solipsism when pressured.
No.1833086
>>1832754i mean, it is under a certain definition. but the point here is whether we can reach a dialectical understanding of the world through reason and experience together, which Hegel argues opposite to Kant that we can
but this is the key point – it's still mediated by reason, and everything that we experience and reason into being still exists as an idea-form
No.1833087
>>1832974IM NOT GOING BACK TO THE GULAGS
No.1833092
>>1832702It was a Hegelian shitpost ;)
No.1833093
>>1832547>Otherwise you'd have to account for antagonism and contradiction against conscious will within an individual human mind itself, which you kind of can't. Whilst Hegel doesn't have a concept of the unconscious he explains this pretty readily in his description of the phenomenology leading into the unhappy consciousness (also the unconscious exists) no one said anything about will. Furthermore, no one said anything about the individual psyche, I'm just explaining problems with materialism that arise through our empirical experience – quite literally we know from experience that we experience the world in our minds. If you can't accept even the basics of Kant then I don't see how you reconcile this with your worldview.
You say 'oh im inferring something about the material world' but there is nowhere here where you are actually interacting with a material world so the assumption that one exists is quite literally that – an assumption. What you're actually doing is generating an idea of a world.
There's no need to bring in these LIES such as 'material world'. Matter is an idea! Classes are conceptual. And as for 'The One' well it makes no difference whether you say it is constituted by matter or by consciousness– the important thing for us to determine is whether it is vitalistic or mechanistic. Hegel and Spinoza are both naturalists but they're also vitalists.
No.1833148
i don't think you understand the materialism idealism dichotomy, there's def critiques you can apply to marx but the idea of models being abstract and an understanding of social construction is something lacking in marxists rather than marx per se
No.1833191
>>1833157i would agree with your point that arguing between the two is irrelevant bc they presuppose rhe other but i disagree that diamat has some greater claim than hegel’s idealism which already is an ideal-realism that sublates the whole dichotomy.
I think the real question here is whether Marx’s dialectics fit into a real Logic of immanent critique
No.1833204
>>1833093> If you can't accept even the basics of Kant then I don't see how you reconcile this with your worldview. Why do I owe the philosophical canon deference? Philosophy isn't science, and progress in the former tends to be much more ambiguous than the latter. Kant might be important, but he's not Newton or Einstein.
TBH this is the kind of shit that alienated me from continental philosophy. There comes a point where you're no longer talking about meaningful philosophical issues, and just doing commentaries on commentaries on commentaries that are just games of telephone using old concepts that aren't necessarily even relevant anymore.
No, I don't care if Deleuze or Derrida or whoever did some brilliant derivation from Bataille who did it from Nietzsche etc etc etc - I give a fuck if it's a coherent argument that leads to a useful conclusion.
> but there is nowhere here where you are actually interacting with a material world so the assumption that one exists is quite literally that – an assumption.How?
You spend the thread yelling at people "It's in our heads! It's in our heads!!!" but for all the hemming and hawing you've done about that, *you* haven't demonstrated anything either. You've just screamed "I ASSUME THE CAUSAL STARTING POINT IS IDEAS!!! THEREFORE THERE'S NOTHING OUTSIDE THEM!!!" without justifying why.
>Matter is an idea! Classes are conceptual. You haven't established that at all. You've just done the above by basically screaming that inferential knowledge can't apply here for arbitrary reasons, and therefore there is no material world - which is absurd.
>What you're actually doing is generating an idea of a world. So what? What's stopping me from simply replying "it's a representation of something outside me" and walking away?
No.1833205
>>1833191Depending on your interpretation, Hegel's philosophy might not be so different from Marx.
In a more classical interpretation, Hegel starts in the realm of the abstract and reaches the concrete, eg the World Spirit as it evolves and how that interacts with society's concrete processes. Marx starts at the most fundamentally concrete, which is human activity however it might look, and from there arrives at the emergent properties of them, which is ideology, society, history, etc.
In this sense, Hegel kind of assumes that society, economy, ideology, class, and history itself as a given, and sees how it develops. While Marx doesn't.
Both are immanent critiques, of course. Not sure why you doubt that. Marx demonstrates the mechanism of human society as a whole with contrasting components that form the motor of societal development. There's nothing not immanent in it. Everything is constructed from elements already present in the analyzed substance, all developments are accounted for as immanent developments.
No.1833212
>>1833204As much as I find continental philosophy interesting, and I do believe there's a lot to learn, in terms of a self sustained theory that is actively applicable everywhere, I agree there's not much to be had there.
Some of the nice things in these philosophies have already been integrated into mainstream Marxist analysis anyways.
I think we might gain some good insights in looking at contemporary Chinese philosophy. The west is seemingly stuck in a rut. The best theory being put out in the west is historical, or geopolitical-economic.
What else do we have, object oriented ontology? Analytic philosophy? New atheism? Libertarian schizophrenic ramblings in the NRX crowd? As interesting as they are, lacanian Hegelian analysis of ideology? We're stuck in a rut.
No.1833213
>>1833157I honestly have kind of a weird folk-theory. I think the average internet geek - especially the type drawn to a subject like philosophy - is drawn to idealist theories because a geek's greatest fear is that the truth is boring and can't live up to the excitement of their imaginations - which is what they surround themselves with through consumption and content recommentation algorithms. In that context, no shit idealism is appealing to them. Idealism is sexy and weird and makes you feel like you're getting some kind of cool-kid secret-club knowledge and flatters your ego by putting you at the driver's seat of reality, materialism on the other hand just kind of tells you "sit the fuck down, dickwad." No shit these people are going to be drawn to one over the other, they live lives where they construct a world for themselves where their everyday practices make it so that it is "constructed", and when you take this far enough, they basically go full schizoposter.
Which, bluntly, I think is a sign of immaturity on their end. Growing up means realizing that existence is under no obligation to validate you
No.1833215
>>1833212Yeah. Honestly The only seemingly really interesting nuts-and-bolts use of the continental canon outside of Marx has been what somebody like DeLanda does with Deleuze or Foucault - but he's a weirdo neo-Braudelian who thinks capitalism doesn't exist, so I'm not sure how far you can take his stuff, either
No.1833226
>>1833204why are you on the thread then
No.1833231
>>1833205I would say that this is a worthwhile opposition to explore, but the problem with starting at 'however it might look' is that this is not reflexive. It doesn't really critique ideology, it's missing a whole giant step which is really fundamental– the thinking about thinking. We can't just start talking about 'things how they appear' without critiquing the rules of experience itself, how experience works and how reason constitutes itself immanently in experience. There's not enough self-crit in Marx.
This is why (though I hate him) Descartes is an important philosopher. Because he begins from the position of doubt whereas Marx begins from a position of absolute certainty without evaluating whether his understanding of experience is already ideological.
No.1833233
>>1833213I'm pretty certain that this is just you disavowing your own lack and not being willing to look at your own ideological shit rather than saying much about anyone else.
No.1833234
>>1833226why did you start this thread to begin with? You asked a question and made a statement and now face opposition from those who disagree with you. If you do not desire to face opposition then why create this thread, especially with such a controversial statement as it’s subject?
No.1833238
>>1833234you asked 'why should i engage with this thread' the simple answer is, you don't have to.
No.1833319
Broke me leg yesterday.
Focused on it really hard and now it's almost completely healed 💯%.
Gonna ask the nurse to stop 🛑 morphine. No need.
No.1833335
>>1833213Well, yeah. Depends which kind but for sure, like the LARP Christian monarchist or even Nazis, are a huge cope in the powerlessness of it all. I'd argue even mainstream liberalism creates a bunch of coping mechanisms in a similar manner. Like voting, "raising awareness", and just a general sense of superiority of your political counterparts, and the main problem being that most people are too stupid to have the correct ideas to transform society into a nicer one.
No.1833338
>>1833335>>1833213most leftists put themselves in a similar protective coating. it doesn't matter that you're powerless because objective application of vaguely overheard marxist vibes tells you that the multipolaristas are going to destroy AmeriKKKa. communist theory may be materialist, but contemporary non-governmental communists invariably bend the cruel material world to their emotional needs.
>and the main problem being that most people are too stupid to have the correct ideas to transform society into a nicer one.leftists fundamentally believe this in particular: they become very annoyed when you push incorrect theory because they believe in the power of marxist ideas, they aren't truly confident that history is on their side, they aren't even really ideological: they just want to know you're on their team. ideas being true, let alone being interesting, comes an awful second place.
No.1833365
no
No.1833368
yes
No.1833374
>>1833233Neat. Explain how invoking Lacan in an ad hominem proves you right
No.1833377
>>1833157Interesting take; Graeber critiqued orthodox materialism along that line, toying with the idea of what a "mode of production" grown out of _The German Ideology_ instead of the _Contribution to a Critique of Political Economy_ might look like:
<What has passed for “materialism” in traditional Marxism— the division between material “infrastructure” and ideal “superstructure,” is itself a perverse form of idealism. Granted, those who practice law, or music, or religion, or finance, or social theory, always do tend to claim that they are dealing with something higher and more abstract than those who plant onions, blow glass, or operate sewing machines. But it’s not really true. The actions involved in the production of law, poetry, etc., are just as much material as any other. Once you acknowledge the simple dialectical point that what we take to be self-identical objects are really processes of action, then it becomes pretty obvious that such actions are always (a) motivated by meanings (ideas) and (b) always proceed through a concrete medium (material). Further, that while all systems of domination seem to propose that “no, this is not true, really there is some pure domain of law, or truth, or grace, or theory, or finance capital, that floats above it all,” such claims are, to use an appropriately earthy metaphor, bullshit. As John Holloway (2003) has recently reminded us, it is in the nature of systems of domination to take what are really complex interwoven processes of action and chop them up and redefine them as discrete, self-identical objects— a song, a school, a meal, etc. There’s a simple reason for it. It’s only by chopping and freezing them in this way that one can reduce them to property and be able to say one owns them.<A genuine materialism then would not simply privilege a “material” sphere over an ideal one. It would begin by acknowledging that no such ideal sphere actually exists. This, in turn, would make it possible to stop focusing so obsessively on the production of material objects— discrete, self-identical things that one can own— and start the more difficult work of trying to understand the (equally material) processes by which people create and shape one another. No.1833380
>>1833338This is why even though I'm sympathetic to Leninist theories of imperialism and think they're correct in broad strokes, I've become jaded towards a lot of the more dogmatic strains of marxism like the kind of caricature of ML theory that internet leninists tend to promote. You never see it occur to them that perhaps the efficacy of Leninist praxis is far more contextually-bound than they're willing to admit, so they blame everyone else apart from themselves when applying it to contexts outside the material context of comparatively weak periphery states ends up not panning out
It's why lately, as far as western marxism goes, I have more respect for something like the Neue Marx Lekture or Analytical Marxism or even somebody like Cockshott compared to what I see a lot of in The Discourse - disagree with it as much as you like, but it at least takes the "scientific" part seriously insofar as it's willing to seriously critically engage with reality and its own foundations
No.1833386
>>1833238Anfem anon, I'm gonna tell you some shit that I learned the hard way when I was younger
There's a big difference between knowing the concepts in continental philosophy, and having the ability to actually use them in a way that's rational and can allow you to make sense of the world
If you uncritically just throw around conty ideas like "Dasein" or "Body without Organs" or "objet petit a" without some coherent framework of reasoning, you're gonna get nowhere
No.1833388
>>1833382Come on and just
Freeezieee your braiiinnnnn
No.1833711
>>1833377I think Graeber is not being terribly generous with Marx here. I'm sure he's read Capital, but here he seems to be deriving the first few chapters again, with ironically a liberal idealist turn. No hate though, just an observation.
>>1833338While true, I see the same fault in so called anti multipolaristas. I framed it the way I did to criticize exactly that. I think you're being very ungenerous to the so called multipolaristas, and I think multipolaristas are ungenerous to anti multipolaristas.
I recently emigrated to Europe. Since I've been here I've met someone who worked for the Uhyger Youth Congress, and someone who worked for the Freedom House in some eastern European country (won't say the name).
Many of this board lives in Europe or USA. They are actively spending billions and billions specifically to wage war on Russia and China. It is absolutely imperative that this be stopped, for a million reasons, from pragmatic socialist reasons, to mere self preservation. This coming war is, and I'm sure you'll agree, because (mainly) China and others are destabilizing the world hegemonic order. Socialist or not, it is an inevitability, and yet, socialist on the west are seemingly looking at this and saying "no, we won't get involved, because [China isn't socialist, or its an inter imperialist war, or whatever other reason]". Frankly I find it absolutely reproachable!
If you think nothing can be done, if you think it's over than that's your prerogative. I think this war must be sabotaged in all ways possible.
I realize that for you this is very off putting because you see leftists cheering on China, you see this as some vulgar nationalism. That's understandable.
I want to share my perspective on why I see China with immense admiration and excitement. I was born and raised in a third world country. I lived through periods of enormous insecurity. I lived through very harsh periods of neoliberalization. I lived through a myriad of corrupt politicians lining their pockets while the rich got richer. I grew up watching the US invade and bomb Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen. I witnesses coups live. I witnessed the results of American crimes in Haiti.
And in all these years, nothing seems to change. I have a harder time getting a good life. Rent is prohibitively expensive now, it's now more and more common for 30 year olds to live with their parents. Even some married couples are doing it. Everything in general is more expensive and salaries are stagnant.
Meanwhile, China has been consistently improving conditions in their country. Their country has been independent for less than ours. It was in a far far worse state than ours 60 years ago. Now it is one of the safest countries in the world. I personally know people who have been killed by criminals, assaulted, robbed, kidnapped. That shit simply doesn't happen in China. I'm scared to walk on the street at nights. Looking at the lifestyle of the average Chinese city dweller and the average city dweller of my country, it's like comparing a first worlder to a third wolder.
Not only that, we've been fucked by the WEF, by the IMF, etc. How can you NOT admire China when it is offering 0 interest loans and then forgiving them. Who wouldn't wish their country be like China? Only a fucking maniac or a privileged first worlder. Even the lower income people of the first world have worse conditions than the average urban Chinese. In fact, in the US, the quality of life of poor black Americans is comparable to poor African countries. That's how fucking shit it is.
I agree that the apparent nationalism can be a bit off putting, but on the other hand, no other thing gives me quite as much hope for the future of green energy, world peace, the end to the seemingly unending western supremacist imperial hegemonic order, for socialism, for the betterment of the quality of life of all the people in the global south, than China. China is the mythical god Atlas, carrying the entire fucking global south. And whether for capitalist reasons, or whatever other reasons you like, China has been a fucking blessing in terms of socialist goals, both nationally and internationally.
What I'm saying is, that I think you should be a bit more generous to what other people are saying about China. Maybe what you interpret as vulgar nationalism is merely enthusiasm as to how the world is shaping up, mixed with a tremendous anxiety of the coming war being waged by the west.
No.1833716
>>1833380All the IRL MLs I've known have been aware of this and don't do this thing you mention. Even the Zapatistas seemed to suggest they were engaging in ML with Mayan/Lacandonian characteristics.
No.1833805
i cant believe leftypol is literally defending solipsism
No.1834243
>>1833093>There's no need to bring in these LIES such as 'material world'. Matter is an idea! Classes are conceptual. And as for 'The One' well it makes no difference whether you say it is constituted by matter or by consciousness– the important thing for us to determine is whether it is vitalistic or mechanistic. Hegel and Spinoza are both naturalists but they're also vitalists.How much of this is semantic? Does Marx mean something categorically different by matter than what Spinoza means by substance?
>>1833204>Why do I owe the philosophical canon deference?You dont really have to know the peoples names or whatever most of it has been subsumed into pop culture but its important as a common foundation for making sense of things. Like the reason its important here answers your question
>without justifying whyOne of the foundations for these arguments is the whole I think therefore I am thing and the demon who creates the illusion of the world. Its not to argue that there is a real demon but what you can doubt, so in this case the reason Ideas are assumed to be first is because the only really fundamental thing about reality is that you experience it. You can't prove much else with classic techniques.
>>1833374It just sounds like ifuckinglovescience stemlord cope for not knowing what you are talking about.
>>1833231>We can't just start talking about 'things how they appear' without critiquing the rules of experience itself, how experience works and how reason constitutes itself immanently in experience. There's not enough self-crit in Marx.I dont really think he does this its just that the justification is baked in. Hes not actually taking things directly as they appear but how they socially manifest. The whole point of doing it dialectically is to show that there is a shared object via something like parallax. You could try to say that something other than social production is a more determinative factor but I'm not sure it would work. I think if you understand Hegel or the Ontological argument then you should be able to tell from the same logic how dialectical materialism isn't just an assumption.
No.1834252
>>1834243>Does Marx mean something categorically different by matter than what Spinoza means by substance?The idealist argument claims that because individuals can only experience the world subjectively, the entire world must exist solely within the realm of subjective experience, and thus the world doesn't exist objectively, that is, outside minds, without a subject to experience it. However this argument is a non sequitur, a logical fallacy, as the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. It can be both true that we can only experience the world subjectively, and that the world exists objectively, outside our minds.
So basically idealism means being is dependent upon mind, meaning an actual independent human mind, and possibly that gets extrapolated to a kind of cosmic mind as in spinoza, hegel and eastern religion. But ultimately to be an idealist is to believe that reality is fundamentally experiential and materialism is about reality existing independently regardless of human (or cosmic/God) mind.
the reality is for all the energy spent on refuting idealism,
idealism already died with the 20th century since it came under the dual attack of marxism materialism and scientific positivism and as a result there are very, very, very few western philosophers who are still idealists. The world has been disenchanted and secularized and its impossible to talk about idealism without religion and the role God, either in the impersonal Spinozan sense or in the literal sense (i.e. the one true god of Yahweh/jehovah in christianity/judaism) like Descartes who was a literal Catholic.
The idea that reality itself is some emanation of a perfect form or ideal substance, monad, or reason/thought trying to know itself has just faded away and most people now accept materialism or physicalism on some level.
Much like the classical liberal arts education, idealism is just pointless to study now. Outside Marx/Engels and vanishingly few other left wing authors there's sort of no point in studying any philosophy prior to the 20th century.
No.1834258
>>1834252Well first of all Hegel and Spinoza are materialists.
>idealism already died with the 20th century since it came under the dual attack of marxism materialism and scientific positivism No not really the type of Idealism we are talking about is closer to Marx than positivism is. Lenin even wrote a whole book about positivism being subjective idealist solipsism.
No.1834261
>>1834258>as a result there are very, very, very few western philosophers who are still idealistsand considering that positivism is as prevalent as liberalism and considered "not ideological" in the same way the vast majority of western philosophers are actually idealists, and in the worst kind vulgar bad meaning of it
No.1834414
>>1834243>It just sounds like ifuckinglovescience stemlord cope for not knowing what you are talking about. <IFL ahhh there it is, the part where the vibesposter just goes "uhhh actually uhhh STEMlord"
No.1834415
>>1833716In my experience, yeah, it is mainly an online thing. That said, the big issue is that for basically anyone under 50, online is where they first see communists. If their first impression of a communist is some internet tryhard going "AHAHAHAHAHAH GULAG GULAG GULAG CORNCOB BINCH UNLIMITED GAMERCIDE NUKE OHIO MAKE ME GENERAL SECRETARY OF THE USSA!!! IF 1917 DOESN'T HAPPEN IN OHIO RIGHT NOW THEN EVERYONE WEST OF THE BALTICS IS EVIL" they're gonna file us away with the alt-right and radlib crowds as "weirdos I want nothing to do with"
No.1834420
>>1834243>You dont really have to know the peoples names or whatever most of it has been subsumed into pop culture but its important as a common foundation for making sense of things. Like the reason its important here answers your question In my experience, I kind of don't have to beyond a basic familiarity if I'm not trying to be some kind of academic.
There's just some ideas that were important at the time, but their foundational reference points are basically dead. Do I really have to respect Jacques Lacan when people still can't decide if Freud himself was worthwhile? Do I really have to give a shit about old idealist theories of the mind meant to address questions that things like neuroscience already answered? Like the angry pointing brendan frasier anon pointed out, just because an idea was historically important doesn't mean it's still relevant. Some ideas just fucking die and are only around because the intellectual conservatism of the academy as an institution keeps them on life support. Their supporters just keep collectively moving goalposts until some new discovery BTFOs them.
>One of the foundations for these arguments is the whole I think therefore I am thing and the demon who creates the illusion of the world. Its not to argue that there is a real demon but what you can doubt, so in this case the reason Ideas are assumed to be first is because the only really fundamental thing about reality is that you experience it. You can't prove much else with classic techniques. That's not a justification, that's just a more verbose re-wording with added references. You still can't explain
why it isn't a non-sequitur for you to rule out inferential knowledge re: an external, mind-independent material world
No.1834513
>>1834252This is, to anyone with a functioning brain and the most meagre understanding of philosophy, clearly not the idealist argument (especially not the Hegelian one) so you've shown you're the kind of person who just posts lots of words without saying anything of value.
No.1834518
>>1834243>The whole point of doing it dialectically is to show that there is a shared object via something like parallaxBased and Karatani-pilled!
No.1834524
>>1834414
>talking about different ideas?>questioning the linguistic-ideological framework I grew up with?>that's pseud!Why do you come to a board about fringe political philosophies if not to you know, engage with philosophy?
Can't you people get new material? if you don't like what i'm saying fine im up to listen to anyone's opposing opinion that's how we learn as a people. if your whole argument is 'dats world slalad' im not going to listen.
No.1834544
can u guys stop using reddit spacing pls
No.1834546
:(
No.1834550
>>1834524Look, point is, sure, utilize different ideas if you like. But the problem is that saying "this particular thinker thought this, therefore this chain of reasoning is valid" honestly strikes me as an appeal to authority
No.1834588
>>1834550no one said that
No.1834591
>>1834544Only a redditor would be able to identify reddit spacing. As someone who has never used reddit, I have no idea wtf you're talking about. Could you enlighten me
Also pic related is why
>>1834252 is nonsense. That poster does not even understand the basics of Hegel
No.1834597
>>1834591reddit spacing
is this
this is not
reddit spacing
it always bothered me a bit when people did this, others call it reddit spacing so thats what i ended up calling it too
No.1834598
>>1834597It always just struck me as normal paragraph spacing. That's how school taught me how to write things up on a computer in a document so it is the convention I've followed.
This method just strikes me as poor paragraphing and far less impactful.
I could add indents maybe?
No.1834599
>>1833380Agreed.
>You never see it occur to them that perhaps the efficacy of Leninist praxis is far more contextually-bound than they're willing to admitNot admitting it might just be the strategy. The Ehrenreichs proposed that the PMC are properly a class because of their special, effectively exclusive reproductive relation to the capitalist social order. Regardless, the people making up the PMC under their definition tend to treat Lenin as a heroic boss role model. They may make a fandom, a religion, or both out of the parts of Marxist thought they happen to like, rationalizing their commitments with the usual self-righteous harangue of the gentry. They construct themselves as qualified judges of the general interest and reformers of capital and labor alike, occupying a pastoral niche not unlike that of the mediaeval priest trying to make peace between God and the Devil by working out the correct exchange rate.
>>1833711Generosity is not a customary component of science. That said, Graeber noted, regarding the mode of production, that Marx "threw the term about quite casually, speaking not only of the capitalist or feudal modes of production, but 'primitive,' 'patriarchal' or 'slavonic' ones, and so on." The 150 years of thought since then haven't really helped, as he continues tracing the concept through Althussy's attempt at a forces-and-relations formulation, Perry Anderson's criticism of the "Asiatic mode" and the lack of response to his call for replacements, and Immanuel Wallerstein's transformation of the unit of analysis from within to between nominally self-contained polities. What's left of the mode approach after all that is, essentially, a theory of the state that brings us materially no closer to the stateless, classless, moneyless destination.
I agree that anarchist scholarship does need to be handled with due care, but so must one be diligent against bourgeois pieties such as faith and tradition.
No.1834602
>>1834598nevermind then, maybe im just being too autistic
No.1834605
>>1834599I can't respond in full at the moment. By generosity, I mean "engage in good faith" and assuming the best.
No.1834612
>>1834569>696
9
desu desu desu desu
No.1834630
>>1834591>That poster does not even understand the basics of HegelNTA, but you are talking liek it is easy!1!
I sometiimes find myself spending much time staring at the wall while thinking on one of his statements.
When he says things like picrel I feel like he is making up his own system, 'x precedes y' etc. etc. I just ask muself 'why it is so? why the process is like this?' , or even, why do I even ask why..
No.1834634
>>1834627Okay, this is what I mean.
Why is the continental tradition the best framework for thinking about these things in the first place?
To put it another way - stripped of all name-dropping, what is the actual logical structure here?
No.1834688
>>1834420>You still can't explain why it isn't a non-sequitur for you to rule out inferential knowledge re: an external, mind-independent material worldI'm not actually saying that, inferential knowledge is the next step and kind of Kants whole project. The point is that you cant show how inference from subjective experience is objective without Hegel. By "thats not justification" it sound like you are looking for something empirical which is a completely different domain. Your making a category error. And neuroscience hasn't answered shit because it can not. Thats the problem.
>>1834414> the part where the vibesposter just goes "uhhh actually uhhh STEMlord"Its fine to study STEM the problem is when you only study STEM.
No.1834690
>>1834688> The point is that you cant show how inference from subjective experience is objective without Hegel. By "thats not justification" it sound like you are looking for something empirical which is a completely different domain. Your making a category error. And neuroscience hasn't answered shit because it can not. Thats the problem.But
why No.1834693
>By SUBSTANCE (substantia) I understand that which is in itself and is conceived through itself: that is, that, the conception of which does not depend on the conception of another thing, from which conception it must be formed. https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ne/spinoza.htm
>In Hegel there are three elements, Spinoza’s Substance, Fichte’s Self-Consciousness and Hegel’s necessarily antagonistic unity of the two, the Absolute Spirit. The first element is metaphysically disguised nature separated from man; the second is metaphysically disguised spirit separated from nature; the third is the metaphysically disguised unity of both, real man and the real human species…
>Herr Bauer, who in all domains carries through his opposition to Substance, his philosophy of self-consciousness or of the Spirit, must therefore in all domains have only the figments of his own brain to deal with. In his hands, Criticism is the instrument to sublimate into mere appearance and pure thought all that affirms a finite material existence outside infinite self-consciousness. What he combats in Substance is not the metaphysical illusion but its mundane kernel — nature; nature both as it exists outside man and as man’s nature. Not to presume Substance in any domain — he still uses this language — means therefore for him not to recognise any being distinct from thought, any natural energy distinct from the spontaneity of the spirit, any power of human nature distinct from reason, any passivity distinct from activity, any influence of others distinct from one’s own action any feeling or willing distinct from knowing, any heart distinct from the head, any object distinct from the subject, any practice distinct from theory, any man distinct from the Critic, any real community distinct from abstract generality, any Thou distinct from I. Herr Bauer is therefore consistent when he goes on to identify himself with infinite self-consciousness, with the Spirit, i.e., to replace these creations of his by their creator. He is just as consistent in rejecting as stubborn mass and matter the rest of the world which obstinately insists on being something distinct from what he, Herr Bauer, has produced. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/holy-family/ch06_3_f.htm
>These two expressions, idealism and materialism, originally signify nothing else but this; and here too they are not used in any other sense. What confusion arises when some other meaning is put to them will be seen below.
>But the question of the relation of thinking and being had yet another side: in what relation do our thoughts about the world surrounding us stand to this world itself? Is our thinking capable of the cognition of the real world? Are we able in our ideas and notions of the real world to produce a correct reflection of reality? In philosophical language this question is called the question of identity of thinking and being, and the overwhelming majority of philosophers give an affirmative answer to this question. With Hegel, for example, its affirmation is self-evident; for what we cognize in the real world is precisely its thought-content — that which makes the world a gradual realization of the absolute idea, which absolute idea has existed somewhere from eternity, independent of the world and before the world. But it is manifest without further proof that thought can know a content which is from the outset a thought-content. It is equally manifest that what is to be proved here is already tacitly contained in the premises. But that in no way prevents Hegel from drawing the further conclusion from his proof of the identity of thinking and being that his philosophy, because it is correct for his thinking, is therefore the only correct one, and that the identity of thinking and being must prove its validity by mankind immediately translating his philosophy from theory into practice and transforming the whole world according to Hegelian principles. This is an illusion which he shares with well-nigh all philosophers.
>In addition, there is yet a set of different philosophers — those who question the possibility of any cognition, or at least of an exhaustive cognition, of the world. To them, among the more modern ones, belong Hume and Kant, and they played a very important role in philosophical development. What is decisive in the refutation of this view has already been said by Hegel, in so far as this was possible from an idealist standpoint. The materialistic additions made by Feuerbach are more ingenious than profound. The most telling refutation of this as of all other philosophical crotchets is practice — namely, experiment and industry. If we are able to prove the correctness of our conception of a natural process by making it ourselves, bringing it into being out of its conditions and making it serve our own purposes into the bargain, then there is an end to the Kantian ungraspable “thing-in-itself”. The chemical substances produced in the bodies of plants and animals remained just such “things-in-themselves” until organic chemistry began to produce them one after another, whereupon the “thing-in-itself” became a thing for us — as, for instance, alizarin, the coloring matter of the madder, which we no longer trouble to grow in the madder roots in the field, but produce much more cheaply and simply from coal tar. For 300 years, the Copernican solar system was a hypothesis with 100, 1,000, 10,000 to 1 chances in its favor, but still always a hypothesis. But then Leverrier, by means of the data provided by this system, not only deduced the necessity of the existence of an unknown planet, but also calculated the position in the heavens which this planet must necessarily occupy, and when [Johann] Galle really found this planet [Neptune, discovered 1846, at Berlin Observatory], the Copernican system was proved. If, nevertheless, the neo-Kantians are attempting to resurrect the Kantian conception in Germany, and the agnostics that of Hume in England (where in fact it never became extinct), this is, in view of their theoretical and practical refutation accomplished long ago, scientifically a regression and practically merely a shamefaced way of surreptitiously accepting materialism, while denying it before the world.
>But during this long period from Descartes to Hegel and from Hobbes to Feuerbach, these philosophers were by no means impelled, as they thought they were, solely by the force of pure reason. On the contrary, what really pushed them forward most was the powerful and ever more rapidly onrushing progress of natural science and industry. Among the materialists this was plain on the surface, but the idealist systems also filled themselves more and more with a materialist content and attempted pantheistically to reconcile the antithesis between mind and matter. Thus, ultimately, the Hegelian system represents merely a materialism idealistically turned upside down in method and content…
>But it was Feuerbach himself who did not go “forwards” here; in the social domain, who did not get beyond his standpoint of 1840 or 1844. And this was again chiefly due to this reclusion which compelled him, who, of all philosophers, was the most inclined to social intercourse, to produce thoughts out of his solitary head instead of in amicable and hostile encounters with other men of his calibre. Later, we shall see in detail how much he remained an idealist in this sphere.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/ludwig-feuerbach/ch02.htm No.1834704
>>1834690Its like asking for a physical justification of math or a biological justification of ethics.
No.1834716
>is idealism a crude form of materialism?
Your subjective opinions are material electro-chemistry in your brain.
No.1834736
>>183471670 autism score take that is completely out of its depth relative to the criticisms being presented here. this is LITERALLY the equivalent of someone going 'BUT HAVE YOU CONSIDERED… HUMAN NATURE?!' in response to communism as a concept, that's how lost you are here
No.1834760
In addition, metaphysical modality has often been characterized as the widest, strongest, most unrestricted, or absolute modality (e.g., Kripke 1980; Lewis 1986; Stalnaker 2003; van Inwagen 1998; Hale 2013; Williamson 2016). While these are metaphorical labels (and recently the target of several criticisms, e.g., Clarke-Doane 2019a, 2019b; Mallozzi forthcoming a), the core idea is that metaphysical modality is not restricted by the laws of nature and is more substantive than logical-conceptual modality. As such, it is plausibly the modality of philosophical thinking par excellence.
A helpful diagram to understand the relationship between the three main alethic modalities, namely logical, physical, and metaphysical modality, is the nesting model. The model depicts a nesting relation among those modalities, such that what is physically possible is also metaphysically possible, and what is metaphysically possible is also logically possible (see fig. 1).
three nested ovals. The innermost one labeled 'Physical', the midmost one 'Metaphysical', and outermost one labeled 'Logical'.
Fig. 1: Nesting model for possibility.
Conversely, what is logically necessary is metaphysically necessary, and what is metaphysically necessary is also physically necessary. Other kinds of modality can be suitably added to the model, as well, such as practical possibility. Practical possibilities would be within the physical possibilities. Importantly, some philosophers question whether metaphysical modality is a distinct and irreducible modality. Alternative accounts include inflationism, deflationism, and skepticism. Inflationists, such as David Chalmers (2002), hold “Modal Monism”, the view that there is only one modal notion or primitive, such that metaphysical and logical modality coincide (more below, §4.1). Deflationists, such as Sydney Shoemaker (1998), argue that metaphysical modality coincides with physical modality. Skeptics, such as Graham Priest (2021), question whether there is a notion of metaphysical necessity that is distinct from both, analytic necessity (which corresponds to conceptual necessity) and physical necessity.
Metaphysical modality is the modality that is typically at stake in philosophical argumentation (e.g., St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument, Rene Descartes’ Argument for Mind-Body Dualism, George Berkeley’s Argument for Idealism). Accordingly, the Access Question in the epistemology of modality focuses on how we can access metaphysical modality. Besides investigating the modal status of philosophical propositions, modal epistemologists are also interested in answering common every-day modal questions, such as, could the couch be on the other side of the room? Can Mary climb the tree? Can the cup fit in the drawer?
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/modality-epistemology/ No.1834794
>>1834736I think we should forcibly educate leftypol on what actually diamat is. Starting from Hegel.
No.1835076
>>1834258>Hegel and Spinoza are materialists. wrong you're just confusing objective idealism with materialism. idealism can be subjective or objective
No.1835130
>>1835076The idea that Hegel was a materialist is new, and compatible with calling him an objective idealist, or absolute idealist or whatever, its the same thing, but Spinoza was definitely a materialist and Hegel even called himself a Spinozist. Calling Hegel an idealist privileges one side of the dialectic, which is contrary to what Hegel wrote and taught. Materialism when a Marxist says it just means a dialectical phenomenology of immanent critique. The reason I responded to that poster saying that Hegel is a materialist is because the context implies that what they mean by idealism is not some kind of objective dialectical idealism they mean "unfounded stuff made up in your head".
No.1835173
>>1835130>Materialism when a Marxist says it just means a dialectical phenomenology of immanent critiquethat sounds like Hegelianism.
Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions of material things. According to philosophical materialism, mind and consciousness are caused by physical processes, such as the neurochemistry of the human brain and nervous system, without which they cannot exist. Materialism directly contrasts with idealism, according to which consciousness is the fundamental substance of nature.
Materialism is closely related to physicalism - the view that all that exists is ultimately physical. Philosophical physicalism has evolved from materialism with the theories of the physical sciences to incorporate more sophisticated notions of physicality than mere ordinary matter (e.g. spacetime, physical energies and forces, and exotic matter). Thus, some prefer the term physicalism to materialism, while others use the terms as if they were synonymous.
Materialism is supported by modern science, specifically neuroscience, which has consistently demonstrated the connection between physical processes in the brain and mental states and consciousness. Philosophies traditionally opposed or largely historically unreconciled to scientific theories of materialism or physicalism include idealism, pluralism, dualism, panpsychism, and other forms of monism.
Epicureanism is a philosophy of materialism from classical antiquity that was a major forerunner of modern science.
this is common knowledge, but apparently not on leftypolEssentially, idealism is the philosophical school of thought as descended from Plato/Socrates, while materialism is descended from the atomism of Democritus, Epicurus, and Lucretius. The difference between materialism in general and Marxist materialism is that Marx went beyond Epicurus while underlining his importance for a materialist analysis, though this is a whole other post.
The Hegelian affect in Marx's writing should really be understood as a method of exposition in line with the intellectual trends of the time not that Marx was basically just a bad Hegelian which is the pseud/AW reading.
No.1835175
>>1835173I've seen you spam this image so many times and I am shocked you have finally provided more than 2 sentences to go with it(not that they are worth reading but still.)
No.1835181
>>1835173Youre quoting wikipedia and
>Materialism is closely related to physicalism is strait up wrong and false.
Idealism is anything that is not dialectical.
For Marxists materialism is shorthand for dialectical materialism and is in explicitly opposed to physicalism. The wikipedia definition is intentionally obfuscating that due to the inherent anti-communist bias in western acedemia and because the average person subscribes to some form of physical reductionist positivism, which is idealist. Hegels method is the core of Marx's critique.
No.1835184
>>1835181>Youre quoting wikipediayes, thats the point. its common knowledge
No.1835191
>>1835181>Hegels method is the core of Marx's critique.didn't Engels already dismiss this? Hegel's philosophy was destroyed by materialism but parts of it were incorporated into marxism. It's not just "hegelianism applied to economics".
The fact that the western left is so fucking obsessed with Hegel and totally disregards the epicurean influence on Marx is a product of mid 20th century critical theory influencing marxism. Not to mention the influence of Feuerbach.
How about this (Engels):
>The answers which the philosophers gave to this question split them into two great camps. Those who asserted the primacy of spirit to nature and, therefore, in the last instance, assumed world creation in some form or other — and among the philosophers, Hegel, for example, this creation often becomes still more intricate and impossible than in Christianity — comprised the camp of idealism. The others, who regarded nature as primary, belong to the various schools of materialism.sounds pretty close to the wiki definition.
>But during this long period from Descartes to Hegel and from Hobbes to Feuerbach, these philosophers were by no means impelled, as they thought they were, solely by the force of pure reason. On the contrary, what really pushed them forward most was the powerful and ever more rapidly onrushing progress of natural science and industry. Among the materialists this was plain on the surface, but the idealist systems also filled themselves more and more with a materialist content and attempted pantheistically to reconcile the antithesis between mind and matter. Thus, ultimately, the Hegelian system represents merely a materialism idealistically turned upside down in method and content.i.e. the Hegelian notion of history being the march of the consciousness of freedom beginning with zoroastrians and ending in early 19th century Prussian constitutional monarchy is just a false consciousness version of the actual march of science, technology, and industry created by humans.
>The course of evolution of Feuerbach is that of a Hegelian — a never quite orthodox Hegelian, it is true — into a materialist; an evolution which at a definite stage necessitates a complete rupture with the idealist system of his predecessor. With irresistible force, Feuerbach is finally driven to the realization that the Hegelian premundane existence of the “absolute idea”, the “pre-existence of the logical categories” before the world existed, is nothing more than the fantastic survival of the belief in the existence of an extra-mundane creator; that the material, sensuously perceptible world to which we ourselves belong is the only reality; and that our consciousness and thinking, however supra-sensuous they may seem, are the product of a material, bodily organ, the brain. Matter is not a product of mind, but mind itself is merely the highest product of matter. This is, of course, pure materialism.Marx and Engels were never never against materialism but instead against "vulgar" or mechanical materialism i.e. 18th/early 19th century newtonian determinism. However since that time the physical sciences evolved beyond the "vulgar" mechanical materialism Marx and Engels critiqued.
If anyone deserves the blame its Engels as he didn't know enough science/math to keep up with these advances and his later works like the dialectics of nature are just dumb. Later on when an actual Marxist/socialist scientist (Einstein) read it he thought Engels didn't get the science right. By the 1870s and such statistical physics had already been invented and randomness, chance, etc. had already been incorporated into the physical sciences not to mention quantum/new physics and thus, physicalism is itself no longer incompatible with notions of change and we no longer need pseudo hegelian dressing for Marxism.
No.1835197
>>1835191> "vulgar" or mechanical materialismYes, that is physicalism, or positivism, or reductionism. They are the same thing.
> (Einstein)a Spinozist.
how about you stop fucking watching cockshott youtube videos and read lenin already
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/ No.1835198
>>1835197>how about you stop fucking watching cockshott youtube videos and read lenin alreadyI already have.
>Yes, that is physicalism, or positivism, or reductionism. They are the same thing. no they aren't. physicalism and positivism aren't the same thing. Please do some basic reading.
>a Spinozist. Who cares? his expertise was in physics and he found that Engels got it wrong. I mean for fuck sakes Marx/Engels even got calculus wrong when they tried, this is the problem with dogmatist pseuds who autistically focus on reading authors as scripture and reject any new developments.
No.1835200
>>1835197i think im done engaging with you as you seem to refuse to engage with any of these arguments and instead spam "le read a book" at me. How about explain shit with your own words instead of copypasta bullshit, irrelevant ad homs and appeals to authority
No.1835203
>>1835200Why would ypu expect anything more from them?I hate these fags so much. They have nothing to say but that never stops them.
No.1835207
>>1835205ok Agent Kochinskiite debatebro, just continue to autistically cherry pick one liners to straw man me and make it seem like im supporting positivism while ignoring the main argument and the copious amounts of quotes supporting my position.
No.1835209
>>1835200Its been explained to you in depth multiple times and you just keep repeating things that are blatantly false or in direct contradiction with what Marx Engels or Lenin wrote. If you want to have your own personal made up worldview thats fine but you need to stop misrepresenting other peoples work.
No.1835211
>>1835209>personal made up worldviewHow is your's anymore real?
No.1835215
>>1835207>make it seem like im supporting positivismYou are advocating for idealism and pretending its materialism.
Vulgar mechanica/postitivist/reductionist/physicalist materialism is all idealism on the exact same grounds that they take perception for granted and believe that reality is "what you see is what you get" which is idealist by being undialectical.
>>1835211>How is your's anymore real?Because its not "mine" its not personal and its not made up, but if your the same poster who thinks studying historically important texts is stupid it would make sense that you think that.
No.1835218
>>1835215How so? Who made up your worldview?
No.1835223
>>1835218when did you stop beating your wife
No.1835227
>>1835223Huh? Are you saying that me asking for your worldview is akin to asking why you beat your wife? There is no implication that you beat your wife or anything else nefarious. A very strange diversion in response to simple questions.
No.1835230
>>1835228Damn, now this whole universe makes sense. Who knew all it took was some stupid Venn-diagrams to explain all of existence.
No.1835232
>>1835228the only thing I would add to this is that if the CTD principle is true then the light blue and green circles should be one, so physical=thought since all physical processes should be computable to an arbitrary level of precision.
No.1835233
>>1835230Damn why did god make such a stupid universe it could be explained by MS Paint venn-diagrams?
No.1835234
>>1835230>some stupid Venn-diagrams to explain all of existence.the diagrams are meant to explain things on a level you can understand.
No.1835235
>>1835233maybe its you who are stupid, not the universe. ever thought of that?
No.1835236
>>1835207The problem is that its wrong and you don't understand the Marxist position and you think I don't understand or am trying to refute the scientific position when I do and I'm not.
Its as if you think that by admitting dialectics is correct you have to give up science but I keep telling you that they are in separate domains which is why science has no bearing on philosophy and you keep trying to prove that science can overcome or supplant philosophy when it can't.
The biggest category is metaphysics and then inside it you have ontology and inside that you have empiricism and inside that you have science. Marxism assumes a dialectical metaphysics and then says that people who dont subscribe to it are "doing metaphysics(derogatory)" then inside that you have a dialectical phenomenologic ontology and then inside that you have empiricism and science and I guess you could have ethics and aesthetics or whatever else. They are perfectly compatible.
The dominant worldview is neoliberal neopositivist physical reductionism by which, since Marx, western academia has claimed to have collapsed the distinction between these categories, which is wrong, and is actually motivated cope against Marxism. If you google it you will see mostly diagrams of these categories represented horizontally as if they are equal and independent when they are not. It leads to things like evo psych or trying to prove ethics or solve politics with biological facts and other stupid shit you hear from people like Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson. Certain stances(ie realism, rationalism, etc) in certain domains can rule out or exclude things in other domains but not always it depends on the scope of the claim in question and which domain it pertains to. I even posted some analytical garbage that explains this upthread and you either didn't read it or didn't understand the connection because you haven't done your homework.
The issue with all this is that by denying dialectics it actually precludes revolution and class struggle. It is a sneaky backhanded way to deny the possibility of class consciousness and pretend you aren't doing it.
No.1835239
>>1835234Yes all real scientific laws can be explained so simply with no math whatsoever. Lmao. So what material effects have you been able to achieve in ms paint?
No.1835240
>>1835236>Its as if you think that by admitting dialectics is correct you have to give up science but I keep telling you that they are in separate domains which is why science has no bearing on philosophy and you keep trying to prove that science can overcome or supplant philosophy when it can't. >The biggest category is metaphysics and then inside it you have ontology and inside that you have empiricism and inside that you have science.you are misreading the diagram. This is an ontological diagram not an epistemological one. The label says physical world, not "physics".
No.1835242
>>1835240So made up bullshit with no facts behind it?
No.1835244
>>1835242no, the point is that hegelian/spinozan/platonic substance monism is wrong and a dead end.
No.1835245
>>1835244So made up bullshit with no facts behind it? H
No.1835246
>>1835236how exactly does denying dialectics deny class struggle? Class struggle can be directly observed as well as being observed through history. Denying dialectics would at most deny the historical necessity i.e. outcomes of class struggle but thats actually a good thing. Socialism isn't a historically necessary outcome of the class struggle and thats part of the hegelian historicist baggage whic SHOULD be ejected since history is actually radically contingent and historical materialism is just a structure we imposed on it looking backwards. Historical could just as easily produce barbarism or neofeudalism which in this case is looking more likely than socialism anyway.
No.1835248
>>1835246Because it can't account for change and dialectics is the study of matter in motion opposed to a static mechanical materialism as conceived by a christian god who created the world in seven days with all the animals and plants and rocks in their perfect ideal forms.
No.1835252
>>1835248What is this strawman argument? Because Christians are retarded and you are slightly less so that makes you not retarded?
No.1835254
>>1835248>dialectics is the study of matter in motion opposed to a static mechanical materialismagain i don't think you're paying attention here. Do you actually fucking believe any form of science doesn't include notions of motion, change over time, processes, etc.? that adding 19th century german idealism into the mix is literally the ONLY way of modeling change or having a theory that accounts for social or any other change? Again this is what i mean by dogmatism, people who are just quoting the luminaries of socialism, no thought, critical reflection and are still fighting the battles of the 19th century and whatever lenin said in 1905.
There are PLENTY of alternatives to modelling change and/or motion in a social theory other than using Hegelian language and concepts.
No.1835256
>>1835252Modern science is built on the enlightenment which is foundationally about reconciling the belief in god with the natural world. It has a lot ofchristian baggage because western Europe was christian. A lot of athiests back before evolution was discovered believed that species were eternal and even then entire concept of species categorization is infected with this static representation.
No.1835259
>>1835254>Do you actually fucking believe any form of science doesn't include notions of motion, change over time, processes, etc.?Yes. Your describing mechanical motion
>that adding 19th century german idealism into the mix is literally the ONLY way of modeling change or having a theory that accounts for social or any other change?Yes. Its proof by contradiction and you cant do it without it.
No.1835260
>>1835256Ok and… Jesus Christ. Is there a term for this shit? When you just go on a random tangent in a debate and it just confuses your opponent for how it could possibly be relevant. The closest I can think is a Gish Gallop but that's not it exactly.
No.1835263
>>1835260Its not a random tangent its to show how its relevant to the modern concept of science and not limited just to people who are religious.
No.1835264
>>1835260I mean like we're discussing, let's say, who knows, it doesn't matter, universal healthcare, forgiving student loans. Then you start debating colonies on Neptune, and I have no possible idea how it could connect. I can't say that there is not some connection in your mind, but I can't access it.
No.1835265
>>1835262as the other anon said, what exactly does that video have to do with fuck all? I think you're just throwing shit at the wall and using whatever science terms out of context you can think of to justify your BS
No.1835267
>>1835265Its an educational video for children that explains proof by contradiction in simple terms.
No.1835268
>>1835267and again, what does that have to do with fuck all?
No.1835270
>>1835264We aren't discussing universal healthcare, or forgiving student loans, were discussing materialism and idealism.
No.1835271
>>1835270Doot you can't understand an analogy. Maybe it wasn't a fair analogy but at least you should be able to understand it was an analogy.
No.1835277
>>1835271I dont see how giving examples of why modern science still has idealist baggage because its not dialectical is an unrelated tangential gish-gallop.
No.1835278
>>1835277And really if its getting off topic its because you keep asking stupid questions. Almost like that is the point.
No.1835285
>>1835281i dont know if proof by contradiction in the mathematical sense really is the same as contradiction in dialectics.
No.1835333
Seems to me that we are talking at cross purposes here. The main difference between "mechanical" materialism and dialectics is that dialectics sees change and movement as the result of the clash of internal oppositions which necessarily lead to a climactic resolution while mechanical materialism sees all change as being externally impelled, like billiard balls on a pool table colliding. The thing is these things aren't incompatible depending on the level of ontological abstraction. It could be true that at a micro level things are atomistic but this can lead to macroscopic change. Hence the heat/thermo analogy cockshottists use which itself is reminiscent of the sorts of analogies Mao uses in on contradiction/on practice which isn't surprising since Cockshott is basically a 70s maoist combined with a stemlord hence cockshottists are just maoists in the grand scope of things and so was althusser basically.
I guess the only difference is hegelian marxists would ascribe the macro changes to the dialectic-logic contradictions whereas cockshottism uses the atomist/statistical physics metaphor of a writhing morass of agglomerated individual irreducible elements which interact in an atomic and mechanical sense leading indirectly to macroscopic change much as heat is merely atoms speeding up and colliding and eventually producing a state change (ex: water to steam).
The problem isn't that cockshott is some scientistic anglo-positivist as many of the braindead posters here seem to think but rather the opposite. its that Cockshott wants to drag Althusser halfway back to "normal" marxism by on one hand acknowledging the Althusserian view of history as radically contingent, and that historical materialism is simply a backwards looking structure we place on history, not a model with predictive capability the same way evolutionary biology only explains the previous evolution of one species into another but doesn't predict future species. And this is where cockshott jumps in to say you can combine randomness with necessity by splitting the difference and thats where the autism with markov chains and stochastic materialism come in. But rather than an attack on marxist historical materialism as many here seem to think its actually an attempt to save it. One can just as easily take the atomist metaphors provided by Althusser in the philosophy of the encounter in the opposite direction.
So unlike what OP seems to think the solution isn't to retvrn to hegel, but rather the problem is that even Cockshott is too Hegelian and not materialist enough. He's attempting to save historical necessity, or at least as much as he can in the face of radical contingency and destabilization.
The fact is neither scientific positivism or marxist materialism (including cockshottist atomist versions) truly escape idealism or the idea-matter duality, but thats not a reason to simply declare everything "idealism-with-more-steps" like some AW-tier pseud, its a reason to become even more materialist.
I think the Bataillean notions of base materialism are helpful here. Matter is no longer a monist ideal form like the mirror image of Spinoza's substance, but instead has been liberated from all ontological prisons, that is to say base materialism replaces ontology with non ontology. The difference for example between neoplatonists and spinozists on one hand and practitioners of, for example, advaita vedanta in hindu philosophy is that while neoplatonists posit "the one" i.e. the superform and spinozans "substance", these are "still things in themselves" in the kantian sense, while advaita vedanta posits non dualism. Non dualism is not the same as oneness but rather itself is the negation of oneness as nonbeing is the negation of being, and in this sense what nondual hinduism does to idealism, base materialism does to materialism. One thing these eastern (and other) spiritual traditions seem to share with Bataille's thought, though obviously very different, is the inherent inarticulability of the ground of being/base. By definition base materialism is what allows us to truly escape idealism and the byzantine labyrinth of linguistic signifiers.
No.1835352
>>1835333
>The difference for example between neoplatonists and spinozists on one hand and practitioners of, for example, advaita vedanta in hindu philosophy is that while neoplatonists posit "the one" i.e. the superform and spinozans "substance", these are "still things in themselves" in the kantian sense, while advaita vedanta posits non dualism. Non dualism is not the same as oneness but rather itself is the negation of oneness as nonbeing is the negation of being, and in this sense what nondual hinduism does to idealism, base materialism does to materialism. One thing these eastern (and other) spiritual traditions seem to share with Bataille's thought, though obviously very different, is the inherent inarticulability of the ground of being/base. By definition base materialism is what allows us to truly escape idealism and the byzantine labyrinth of linguistic signifiers.? You've just described Hegel
No.1835355
>>1834634The screenshots explains exactly that, but ig you didn't read them. Logic is the discipline that thinks about its own operations. I don't really care about some analytic vs conty discourse, it's irrelevant. The important thing is whether we're thinking about thinking.
Science takes certain forms of logic for granted and then applies them to pre-conceived notions in order to explore those ontologies in greater depth.
But philosophy is thinking discovering the very forms of thinking itself.
No.1835356
>>1834630It's a way to get out of the problem of induction, reliance on contingent 'thats just the way the mind works / experience works' a la the empiricists, which simply turns philosophy into another form of science and instead seeks to grapple with how the structure of thinking works– and not just 'how it does work' empirically but how it *might* work, the very rules from which it operates, and reflexively.
No.1835359
>>1835259>>1835261I'm hopping into this irrelevant discussion bc I'm a nerd.
This entirely depends on your concept of change So in Intuitionistic Logic, where there is no law of the excluded middle, you still have change, you just can't posit a rule being false and then change your mind on it based by proofs that that leads to a contradiction in your rules. But you can still find contradictions in your rules when you affirm something to be true. And you can still have fluid logical rules by seeing what you can prove as true with different rules by making certain assumptions of rules as true. They have made intuitionistic versions of Prolog for example and you still can have backtracking. Proof by Contradiction is not all that vital to logic and some mathematicians don't agree with the law of excluded middle.
Also worth noting that in intuitionistic logic, not not P is not the same as P. That is, the negation of negation is not simply the original proposition, and proving the negation of a negation does not prove the original proposition.
No.1835360
>>1835228Ahh, but u see, u have yet to deduce the concept of space from Being, so this diagram does not hold. Classic Spinozist error!
No.1835383
>>1835352>You've just described Hegelnot really, although Bataille doesn't 100% reject Hegel either. that would sort of be a longer post though I think his philosophy wouldn't really be compatible with systemic/hegelian philosophy as its too concerned with transgression and unconstrained possibility to be compatible with Hegel's system and its notions of logical completeness.
No.1835542
>>1835383What you described is charitably an interpretation of Hegel, the 'nonbeing as a negation of being' is in the intro of the science of logic. He says you can use 'nonbeing' as an alternative word for 'nothing'. Also I don't really care about Bataille
No.1835842
>>1835542>the 'nonbeing as a negation of being' is in the intro of the science of logicYes, I know, and I'm telling you other philosophers can have different ideas
No.1835902
>>1835333>>1835352Bataille and people influenced by him are retarded (i.e. Deluzeans). Basically his argument is that the only way to escape idealism is
to escape literal ideas. That even conceptualizing or defining shit at all is a subtle form of idealism. But once the only thing left is this experiential encounter with the demons of the underworld, why fucking philosophize at all? If the only way to truly be a materialist is to destroy ontology and escape the prisonhouse of linguistic signifiers then why even discuss shit at all, lets just all drop acid and go to a rave since thats fucking closer to materialism than sitting around talking about shit.
You can really see where Nick Land got his schizoism from.
No.1836210
>>1835842you haven't described any though
No.1836212
>>1835902Yeah Bataille is a little rarted though I like Story of the Eye. Deleuze is still cool though.
I think Amy Hollywood offers some pretty good critiques of Bataille's 'Inner Experience' thing as well as Sartre's 'projects' nonsense which both clearly got a lot of from Kierkegaard (Bataille clearly understands the spirit of Kierkegaard better). Luce Irigaray does a lot better job of navigating some of the pitfalls of religious thinking than Bataille without going 'like, nihilism man'.
No.1836307
>>1834605Most anarchists are quite generous to Marx; they just take him in a different direction than the worker's societies from which they departed. Graeber passed on just as New Materialism was coming together; he might have been sympathetic to it.
>>1835902>the only way to escape idealism is to escape literal ideasWhat abstractions are no longer available once you give up the possibility that thoughts can articulate in relation to one another? Mathematics will certainly have a bad time, and Marx had not yet found an art culture that was free from myth. The purity you're chasing may be a false one.
>>1836212What do you think abolition of the value form means in practice if not moral abolition, and why would that scare anyone who is committed to the end of class, money, and the state?
No.1836964
>>1836307>Most anarchists are quite generous to Marx; they just take him in a different direction than the worker's societies from which they departed. Graeber passed on just as New Materialism was coming together; he might have been sympathetic to it.agree w this anarchists are typically very wiling to listen to Marx. The split ain't as clear as people wish to believe.
>What do you think abolition of the value form means in practice if not moral abolition, and why would that scare anyone who is committed to the end of class, money, and the state?Don't get me wrong, I'm not coming at this from a moralist angle. I just think Bataille's understanding of existentialism is at once better than Sartre's but also displays some of the limits of Kierkegaard's thought and his dependence on introjecting the suffering of the other to attain his own enlightenment.
No.1837030
>>1836964I mean to begin with, Bataille is like… the moralist par excellence lol
No.1837523
>>1836210you didn't really understand that post, the I was saying Bataille is to materialism what nondual hinduism is to idealism
No.1837527
>>1835333>things aren't incompatible depending on the level of ontological abstraction. It could be true that at a micro level things are atomistic but this can lead to macroscopic change.i.e. "non reductive materialism". People ITT are getting materialism confused with reductive materialism and even non materialist philosophies which are reductionist. Materialism or even physicalism are not necessarily tied to verificationist theories of meaning or direct realist accounts of perception.
No.1838155
>>1836964There is more common ground between internationalist anarchists and internationalist Marxists than there is between internationalist Marxists and those who call themselves Marxists and defend nationalism (like the IMT).
Unique IPs: 49